Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02452, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02452    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On October 23, 2023, plaintiffs Alejandra Moreno and Sergio Fernando Moreno (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Defendant”) asserting violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”).

On November 29, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims and to stay the action pending the outcome of arbitration.

The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

When seeking to compel arbitration, the initial burden lies with the moving party to demonstrate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of evidence.¿ (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 841-42; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021), 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164-65.)¿ It is sufficient for the moving party to produce a copy of the arbitration agreement or set forth the agreement’s provisions.¿ (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.)¿ The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of evidence any defense to enforcement of the contract or the arbitration clause.¿ (Ruiz, 232 Cal.App.4th at 842; Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) The trial court then weighs all the evidence submitted and uses its discretion to make a final determination.¿ (Id.)¿ “California law, like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements[.]”¿ (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31 (internal quotations omitted).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the Court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the dispute. Defendant submits a Motor Vehicle Order Agreement (“MVOA”) entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant to purchase a new 2022 Tesla Model X. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.) The MVOA includes an agreement to arbitrate which “applies to any dispute between [Plaintiffs] and [Defendant] and its affiliates.” (Kim Decl. Ex. 1, p. 4.) Th arbitration agreement includes an opt-out provision which allows the buyer to opt out of arbitration within 30 days of signing the agreement by sending a letter to Defendant stating their name, vehicle identification number, and intent to opt out of the arbitration provision. (Ibid.) Raymond Kim states that he is “a Manager, Business Resolution at Tesla, Inc.” and familiar with the service and sales of Tesla vehicles, including the related creation and record-keeping procedures.” (Kim Decl., ¶ 2.) He states that Plaintiffs placed an order for the Vehicle by clicking a “Place Order” button on Defendant’s website and that prior to placing the order, Plaintiffs would have been advised of Defendant’s terms and conditions and provided a hyperlink to the MVOA that Plaintiffs could click on in order to view the terms and conditions. (Kim Decl. ¶ 4.) Mr. Kim also declares that if the MVOA had not been executed, it would not have been downloaded into Defendant’s electronic document storage system. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.) In addition, Mr. Kim states that Defendant maintains letters in which its customers opted out of the arbitration agreement but Defendant did not receive any such letter from Plaintiffs.

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendant has met its initial burden to show that an agreement to arbitrate exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Since the agreement encompasses “any dispute”, Plaintiffs’ claims under the SBA are subject to arbitration. Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion, challenge the existence of the arbitration agreement, or raise any defense to its enforceability. Accordingly, the motion is granted and Plaintiffs are ordered to arbitrate their claims. The Court additionally stays the action pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The Court STAYS the action and sets a status conference for November 19, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse. The parties are ordered to file a joint report informing the Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings no later than 5 court days before the date of the hearing.

Dated this 16th day of May, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.